Radio Waves, Photons, and Wave Speed.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 23 Dec 2009 06:10 "Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message news:7cq3j5pbj4jdmvhpri63c32u29p4uina98(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 15:48:36 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> > wrote: > >> >>"Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message >>news:kr73j517b15jci8oj4723nilk6ooc934sd(a)4ax.com... >>> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 15:15:00 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>"Sam Wormley" <swormley1(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>news:VbydndP118NuEazWnZ2dnUVZ_sypnZ2d(a)mchsi.com... >>>>> On 12/22/09 6:51 PM, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hey dopey, what creates the photons that the antenna emits? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Current (moving charge), Silly! Think Maxwell's equations! >>>> >>>>Or more to the point oscillating or alternating current (so not just >>>>moving, >>>>but accelerating charges) >>> >>> If nothing else, this thread has now demonstrated that inertial is >>> actually >>> considerably brighter than both little eric and wormey, who probably >>> comes >>> in >>> last. >> >>Wow .. two close-to-a-compliment from you in one week. > > I would consider it a compliment. > You're still around the chimp level... So still way ahead of you, even then.
From: Inertial on 23 Dec 2009 06:09 "Henry Wilson DSc." <HW@..> wrote in message news:ufq3j51avb4v0ojoel1fv3vlvo3a1ob6e4(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 15:23:27 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> > wrote: > >> >>"eric gisse" <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>news:hgs5kd$no9$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>> HW@..(Henry Wilson DSc). wrote: >>> [...] >>> >>>> The photon stream contains a great many photons that have pretty random >>>> properties over a wide range. >>> >>> Uh, no. >>> >>> Antennas don't emit every frequency - they emit only a few. >> >>To be fair, he didn't say every frequency .. but did say a wide range. I >>guess that depends on how you define wide, but for a given radio signal, >>the >>range of frequencies needs to be fairly narrow. > > 'frequencies' of what? Derr .. the radio EMR used for radio broadcasts. You know .. what we were talking about. Gees .. are you THAT senile?
From: Ralph Garbage on 23 Dec 2009 06:58 On Dec 22, 3:36 am, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.ander...(a)somewhere.no> wrote: > On 22.12.2009 11:49, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 15:03:59 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" > > <paul.b.ander...(a)somewhere.no> wrote: > > >> On 21.12.2009 01:38, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: > >>> There are still some people here who believe that a radio wave is of similar > >>> nature to a gamma particle and consists of a single photon. Others think it is > >>> a Maxwellian type wave in an aether. How naive. > > >>> I suggest that a radio wave is made by modulating the emission rate of a great > >>> many 'white' photons. The 'wave' is determined by varying the photon energy > >>> density and is projected over a wide angle at c wrt the broadcasting antenna. > > >> This is WILSON'S RADIATION LAW again, isn't it? > >> Or has the law changed? > >> Is RABBIDGE'S RADIATION LAW different? > > >> |Dr. Henri Wilson wrote March 26, 2009: > >> || On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 22:38:59 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" > >> ||<paul.b.ander...(a)somewhere.no> wrote: > >> || > >> ||| Dr. Henri Wilson wrote: > >> |||| Radio signals use photon density variations for waveform definition....... > >> |||| WILSON'S RADIATION LAW. > >> ||| > >> ||| OK, Henri. > >> ||| Apply 'WILSON'S RADIATION LAW' on this real world example: > >> ||| > >> ||| In the interstellar medium there are regions of cold hydrogen. > >> ||| (Just about all the atoms are in ground state.) > >> ||| From this hydrogen, we receive a 21 cm EM radiation. > >> ||| We know that this radiation comes from the superfine transition > >> ||| associated with spin reversal of the electron in ground state. > >> ||| (The same as is used in hydrogen atomic clocks.) > >> ||| When the spin reverses, a single photon is emitted/absorbed. > >> ||| This process is stochastic, and on average each atom experiences > >> ||| a transition once per ~10 million years. Since the density is > >> ||| in the order of 30 atoms per cm^3, and one period of the radiation > >> ||| is 0.7 ns, a bit calculation will show that you must have a volume > >> ||| of 10^7 km^3 (a cube with 215 km sides) to have a 50% probability > >> ||| for a transitions to take place within a specific period. > >> ||| This means that there are hundreds of km between two atoms emitting > >> ||| a photon within the same period. > >> ||| > >> ||| How come these randomly emitted photons from far apart atoms > >> ||| arrange themselves in a wavelike density distribution with > >> ||| exactly 21 cm wavelength? > >> || > >> || They don't, dopey. They don't have to. The individual photons have that > >> || intrinsic wavelength. > >> | > >> | We agree, then. > >> | What reaches the antenna is a flow of randomly spaced photons > >> | with no wavelike density distribution. The wavelength is an > >> | aspect of every photon. > >> | > >> | So why did you previously say: > >> | "Radio signals use photon density variations for waveform definition" > >> | when you now say it is wrong? > >> || > >> ||| Is there a drill sergeant? > >> || > >> || This is not the same process as that which occurs when a high frequency AC > >> || current moves around an antenna. Do you understand radiation from an > >> || accelerating charge? > >> | > >> | So if we receive 21 cm radiation emitted from an antenna, > >> | photon density variations is used for waveform definition, > >> | but if we receive 21 cm radiation from hydrogen, there > >> | is no photon density variation, but the waveform is an aspect > >> | of the photons. > > > correct... > > SIC!!!!! :-) > > >> Hilarious, no? > > > not really. No. > > So Ralph Rabbidge doesn't realize how hilarious his giant self-contradistinctions are. > > This Rabbidge fellow isn't very bright, is he? :-) > Henry Wilson DSc is really really genius! You couldn't even come close to challenging his powerful mind. > > > > I suppose you are going to claim that a radio station that has been on air for > > fifty years is still broadcasing the same photon. > > .. another argument illustrating the intellectual capacity of Ralph Rabbidge. :-) > > -- > Paul > > http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/
From: Inertial on 23 Dec 2009 06:59 "Ralph Garbage" <ralph.rabbidge(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:a6f48879-e9b4-496f-8384-91a9adc2a959(a)w19g2000pre.googlegroups.com... > On Dec 22, 3:36 am, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.ander...(a)somewhere.no> > wrote: >> On 22.12.2009 11:49, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 15:03:59 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" >> > <paul.b.ander...(a)somewhere.no> wrote: >> >> >> On 21.12.2009 01:38, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: >> >>> There are still some people here who believe that a radio wave is of >> >>> similar >> >>> nature to a gamma particle and consists of a single photon. Others >> >>> think it is >> >>> a Maxwellian type wave in an aether. How naive. >> >> >>> I suggest that a radio wave is made by modulating the emission rate >> >>> of a great >> >>> many 'white' photons. The 'wave' is determined by varying the photon >> >>> energy >> >>> density and is projected over a wide angle at c wrt the broadcasting >> >>> antenna. >> >> >> This is WILSON'S RADIATION LAW again, isn't it? >> >> Or has the law changed? >> >> Is RABBIDGE'S RADIATION LAW different? >> >> >> |Dr. Henri Wilson wrote March 26, 2009: >> >> || On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 22:38:59 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" >> >> ||<paul.b.ander...(a)somewhere.no> wrote: >> >> || >> >> ||| Dr. Henri Wilson wrote: >> >> |||| Radio signals use photon density variations for waveform >> >> definition....... >> >> |||| WILSON'S RADIATION LAW. >> >> ||| >> >> ||| OK, Henri. >> >> ||| Apply 'WILSON'S RADIATION LAW' on this real world example: >> >> ||| >> >> ||| In the interstellar medium there are regions of cold hydrogen. >> >> ||| (Just about all the atoms are in ground state.) >> >> ||| From this hydrogen, we receive a 21 cm EM radiation. >> >> ||| We know that this radiation comes from the superfine transition >> >> ||| associated with spin reversal of the electron in ground state. >> >> ||| (The same as is used in hydrogen atomic clocks.) >> >> ||| When the spin reverses, a single photon is emitted/absorbed. >> >> ||| This process is stochastic, and on average each atom experiences >> >> ||| a transition once per ~10 million years. Since the density is >> >> ||| in the order of 30 atoms per cm^3, and one period of the radiation >> >> ||| is 0.7 ns, a bit calculation will show that you must have a volume >> >> ||| of 10^7 km^3 (a cube with 215 km sides) to have a 50% probability >> >> ||| for a transitions to take place within a specific period. >> >> ||| This means that there are hundreds of km between two atoms >> >> emitting >> >> ||| a photon within the same period. >> >> ||| >> >> ||| How come these randomly emitted photons from far apart atoms >> >> ||| arrange themselves in a wavelike density distribution with >> >> ||| exactly 21 cm wavelength? >> >> || >> >> || They don't, dopey. They don't have to. The individual photons have >> >> that >> >> || intrinsic wavelength. >> >> | >> >> | We agree, then. >> >> | What reaches the antenna is a flow of randomly spaced photons >> >> | with no wavelike density distribution. The wavelength is an >> >> | aspect of every photon. >> >> | >> >> | So why did you previously say: >> >> | "Radio signals use photon density variations for waveform >> >> definition" >> >> | when you now say it is wrong? >> >> || >> >> ||| Is there a drill sergeant? >> >> || >> >> || This is not the same process as that which occurs when a high >> >> frequency AC >> >> || current moves around an antenna. Do you understand radiation from >> >> an >> >> || accelerating charge? >> >> | >> >> | So if we receive 21 cm radiation emitted from an antenna, >> >> | photon density variations is used for waveform definition, >> >> | but if we receive 21 cm radiation from hydrogen, there >> >> | is no photon density variation, but the waveform is an aspect >> >> | of the photons. >> >> > correct... >> >> SIC!!!!! :-) >> >> >> Hilarious, no? >> >> > not really. No. >> >> So Ralph Rabbidge doesn't realize how hilarious his giant >> self-contradistinctions are. >> >> This Rabbidge fellow isn't very bright, is he? :-) >> > > Henry Wilson DSc is really really genius! > You couldn't even come close to challenging his powerful mind. BAHAHAHAHA .. hysterical
From: Y.Porat on 23 Dec 2009 07:22
On Dec 23, 1:59 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...(a)rest.com> wrote: > "Ralph Garbage" <ralph.rabbi...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:a6f48879-e9b4-496f-8384-91a9adc2a959(a)w19g2000pre.googlegroups.com... > > > > > On Dec 22, 3:36 am, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.ander...(a)somewhere.no> > > wrote: > >> On 22.12.2009 11:49, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: > > >> > On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 15:03:59 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" > >> > <paul.b.ander...(a)somewhere.no> wrote: > > >> >> On 21.12.2009 01:38, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: > >> >>> There are still some people here who believe that a radio wave is of > >> >>> similar > >> >>> nature to a gamma particle and consists of a single photon. Others > >> >>> think it is > >> >>> a Maxwellian type wave in an aether. How naive. > > >> >>> I suggest that a radio wave is made by modulating the emission rate > >> >>> of a great > >> >>> many 'white' photons. The 'wave' is determined by varying the photon > >> >>> energy > >> >>> density and is projected over a wide angle at c wrt the broadcasting > >> >>> antenna. > > >> >> This is WILSON'S RADIATION LAW again, isn't it? > >> >> Or has the law changed? > >> >> Is RABBIDGE'S RADIATION LAW different? > > >> >> |Dr. Henri Wilson wrote March 26, 2009: > >> >> || On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 22:38:59 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen" > >> >> ||<paul.b.ander...(a)somewhere.no> wrote: > >> >> || > >> >> ||| Dr. Henri Wilson wrote: > >> >> |||| Radio signals use photon density variations for waveform > >> >> definition....... > >> >> |||| WILSON'S RADIATION LAW. > >> >> ||| > >> >> ||| OK, Henri. > >> >> ||| Apply 'WILSON'S RADIATION LAW' on this real world example: > >> >> ||| > >> >> ||| In the interstellar medium there are regions of cold hydrogen. > >> >> ||| (Just about all the atoms are in ground state.) > >> >> ||| From this hydrogen, we receive a 21 cm EM radiation. > >> >> ||| We know that this radiation comes from the superfine transition > >> >> ||| associated with spin reversal of the electron in ground state. > >> >> ||| (The same as is used in hydrogen atomic clocks.) > >> >> ||| When the spin reverses, a single photon is emitted/absorbed. > >> >> ||| This process is stochastic, and on average each atom experiences > >> >> ||| a transition once per ~10 million years. Since the density is > >> >> ||| in the order of 30 atoms per cm^3, and one period of the radiation > >> >> ||| is 0.7 ns, a bit calculation will show that you must have a volume > >> >> ||| of 10^7 km^3 (a cube with 215 km sides) to have a 50% probability > >> >> ||| for a transitions to take place within a specific period. > >> >> ||| This means that there are hundreds of km between two atoms > >> >> emitting > >> >> ||| a photon within the same period. > >> >> ||| > >> >> ||| How come these randomly emitted photons from far apart atoms > >> >> ||| arrange themselves in a wavelike density distribution with > >> >> ||| exactly 21 cm wavelength? > >> >> || > >> >> || They don't, dopey. They don't have to. The individual photons have > >> >> that > >> >> || intrinsic wavelength. > >> >> | > >> >> | We agree, then. > >> >> | What reaches the antenna is a flow of randomly spaced photons > >> >> | with no wavelike density distribution. The wavelength is an > >> >> | aspect of every photon. > >> >> | > >> >> | So why did you previously say: > >> >> | "Radio signals use photon density variations for waveform > >> >> definition" > >> >> | when you now say it is wrong? > >> >> || > >> >> ||| Is there a drill sergeant? > >> >> || > >> >> || This is not the same process as that which occurs when a high > >> >> frequency AC > >> >> || current moves around an antenna. Do you understand radiation from > >> >> an > >> >> || accelerating charge? > >> >> | > >> >> | So if we receive 21 cm radiation emitted from an antenna, > >> >> | photon density variations is used for waveform definition, > >> >> | but if we receive 21 cm radiation from hydrogen, there > >> >> | is no photon density variation, but the waveform is an aspect > >> >> | of the photons. > > >> > correct... > > >> SIC!!!!! :-) > > >> >> Hilarious, no? > > >> > not really. No. > > >> So Ralph Rabbidge doesn't realize how hilarious his giant > >> self-contradistinctions are. > > >> This Rabbidge fellow isn't very bright, is he? :-) > > > Henry Wilson DSc is really really genius! > > You couldn't even come close to challenging his powerful mind. > > BAHAHAHAHA .. hysterical ------------------ psychopath!! Y.P ------------------- |